From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 14:07:33 CST

Alan I hate it.

The message for me this election was
1) it was close
2) there were known errors
3) there were certainly unknown too
4) But we cant tell the difference between an error and a surprising outcome

5) there are always going to be errors, and close outcomes
6) the goal shoul dnot be to make an error-proof machine, but rather a robust system

7) this requires making errors detacable
8) the requires making error differentiable for odd statistics
9) this require being able to correct errors when they occur
10) voter confidence requires tranaparentcy in all of the above.

Frankly it makes no difference to me that there were errors in this election or if we averted a disaster just with a large margin. The looming potential of fraud and errors is problem enough.

I also like Avi Ruben's take that the press set up this hypothetical train wreck by hyping the potential for errors as a high likelihood of a disaster. Now the story is that this was another millenium bug overhyped by the verified voting henny pennies. I think you should address this by stressing the potential for problems remains unchanged. Microsoft has had secuirty holes lurking in designs that only come to light years later.

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST